Central Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270509131
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
New Braunfels, TX, USA
Phone
8307080078
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Reported finances

Revenue
$286,957
Expenses
$283,990
Assets
$528,639
Liabilities
$220,319

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATTY SHAFER (PRESIDENT)
  • GARY GRANING (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GENE HENDON (MEMBER)
  • PAUL FINLEY (MEMBER)
  • MARGIE VILLAPANDO (MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide affordable alternative dispute resolution services to the citizens of central Texas

What it reported doing in 2024

The Central Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Center is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We provide mediation services and training to the underserved and unserved in several Central Texas Counties. Our organization was in established in 2010 and initially offered services as the Hays County dispute resolution center. Our target audience are those citizens who cannot afford both legal and mediation fees in resolving legal conflicts. These cases typically involve government landlord tenant. neighbor to neighbor property claims and business and consumer related issues. the Family cases include divorce child custody child support SPSR and property distribution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 14
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.1%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 16
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.1% of revenue deployed · 16.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $46K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.